"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today's ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court's decision does not alter the Lord's doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice."

"Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”"

"The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree. We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same‐sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. Indeed, the Church has advocated for rights of same‐sex couples in matters of hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment, and probate, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."

"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

My church has taken the same stance. They will continue to love and minster to homosexuals but will not be conducting same sex marriages. After this declaration, my uncle walked out and refuses to come back there.

If anything, decisions like that simply canonize the approach that most Christian churches take - "hate the sin, not the sinner."

Incidentally, the stance of the LDS church is that homosexuals are welcome to attend their churches. They can even bring their spouses and children! However, if they want to be baptized and/or go through temple ordinances, they cannot be practicing homosexual acts. There have been a few interesting articles about this (you shared one with me a while ago, ccgr ), but there is some discomfort among a few of the "gay Mormons" on this stance, while other "gay Mormons" agree with it, viewing it as God's law (and you can't really argue with God), and are willing to do what they can, despite the apparent "burden" of being gay, to remain in good standing with the church and to try and secure a good place in the afterlife.

My church has taken the same stance. They will continue to love and minster to homosexuals but will not be conducting same sex marriages. After this declaration, my uncle walked out and refuses to come back there.

If you don't mind me asking, what was it that your uncle disagreed with? That the church would accept homosexuals as members, or that they would not conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples?

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society.

we (the church I go to now) have been taught to love the sinner BUT hate the sin. While gays may attend our church (and in fact sometimes do)and they are very welcome WE do not and will not allow them to become members
My old church wouldn't allow those who did not believe as church doctrine states to even partake in communion membership or anything requiring that they be believers. As far as I know our new church believes the same way.
It is very sad that unlike the quote above many mainline churches today have not only gave in to the dictates (new word I learned ) of the world but have embraced them willingly
This helps explain to me that why many mainline churches (here at least) are losing members, while the smaller denominations and non denominational churches are growing

1 Thessalonians 5:16-18
16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. (NKJV)
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” Greg King

It is very sad that unlike the quote above many mainline churches today have not only gave in to the dictates (new word I learned ) of the world but have embraced them willingly
This helps explain to me that why many mainline churches (here at least) are losing members, while the smaller denominations and non denominational churches are growing

I've heard from some articles and pastors is that the reason why some churches adapt to reflect more of the dictates of the world is because they fear losing members... and the tithing money and donations they bring. It is sad when church leaders view the accounting books as more important than the Good Book.

I've heard from some articles and pastors is that the reason why some churches adapt to reflect more of the dictates of the world is because they fear losing members... and the tithing money and donations they bring. It is sad when church leaders view the accounting books as more important than the Good Book.

Not to defend that or anything, but there's sort of another point of view, in that many of the small, local churches rely entirely on tithe or offerings from the members. In cases like this, there are two ways a church can be destroyed by the current political climate.

First, if enough of the members change their minds to fit the popular view, then the amount of income won't be able to sustain the church any longer. That means not enough to pay the salary of the pastor, or keep the lights on, or in come cases, pay rent. The church closes.

Second, if the Government eventually revokes the tax exempt status of churches who don't obey the new wisdom, the churches would be forced to close unless the income from members is enough to cover the new taxes. Of course that also leaves the church more vulnerable to the first cause.

If a huge church like the LDS church experiences these problems, it would shrink, but I doubt there's any real danger that it would be forced to shut down. In a worst case scenario, the HQ could move to another country that still values religious freedom and avoid much of the ta expense that way. The same goes for the Catholic Church, whose HQ is already in a country unto itself.

So I agree that morally, the small churches have a duty to the Lord to avoid compromising, even if it means shutting down, but it's hard to judge those pastors who feel that keeping the church open, even if it has to compromise, is better than not preaching the gospel at all.

A counterpoint might be that you don't need all that to preach the gospel, but I dunno... one could go around in circles thinking about it.

However you look at it, the shutting down of thousands of churches is not an accident if it happens, and nobody's gonna convince me that isn't one of the goals of our more radical, left-leaning friends.

"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

It isn't an issue with the LDS church, or any others that do not have paid clergy, but I can see how it can be an issue for those that do. What to do?

1) Adhere to God's word, but run the risk of running out of money and members and having to close the church? Or

2) Change church policy to subscribe to public demand, even if it means ignoring or "glossing over" portions of the Bible, in order to continue their ministry?

It can be a tough call... but as Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters." (Luke 16:13) It is a decision that will have to be made eventually.

A counterpoint might be that you don't need all that to preach the gospel, but I dunno... one could go around in circles thinking about it.

Actually, that seems to be the approach that my parents and grandparents (on my mother's side) took. They believed that all of the "organized" Christian faiths were just in it for the money, so they met in their houses to conduct worship services. It was essentially a small congregation of family and friends, really. But they believed in the Bible and in Jesus Christ. Not so much in pastors, preachers, missionaries, and what have you.

However you look at it, the shutting down of thousands of churches is not an accident if it happens, and nobody's gonna convince me that isn't one of the goals of our more radical, left-leaning friends.

Isn't that the truth? It's no coincidence that Saul Alinsky credited Satan in "Rules for Radicals," which tends to be the handbook for left-wingers and radical progressives.

Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.

You also can't forget what Karl Marx's stance on religion is - and I've heard that he also attributed some of his philosophy as inspired by Satan (although I can't prove that one right now). Here is just one quote from Marx regarding religion:

The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.

So those that are inspired by Alinsky and Marx and believe their teachings as the best way to create a beneficial society have, at their subconscious at the very least, the destruction of religion and religious traditions as one of the "necessary evils" to obtain their goal.

Once again, it comes down to the quote from Jesus - "no one can serve two masters." If you're not serving one, odds are, you're serving the other, and don't even realize it....

Good points indeed. I guess I'm just glad not to have to be the one making the call.

I think soon we'll see the radical thinkers finally drop the pretense about being in favor of tolerance and equality as we move into the endgame phase. Watch for that Canadian Supreme Court decision about hate speech in the Bible get echoed down here in the U.S. (Wouldn't be shocked if it's already started, but if it hasn't, the Canada thing will certainly inspire it soon.)

"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens